Colourability

Colourability Colourability is a concept that goes against Canadian federalism because the Constitution has assigned certain powers to the federal jurisdiction under section 91 and to the provincial realms under section 92.[1] It occurs when either the federal government or any of the provincial or territorial governments, attempts to introduce legislation that may appear to address one issue within the scope of its power but in fact it is a disguised attempt to address something that is outside its jurisdiction. Or, in the words of constitutional scholar Peter Hogg, colourable legislation occurs when a jurisdiction attempts to pass a law indirectly that it cannot pass directly so that it “may accomplish its original goal.”[2] Colourability was an issue in the 1993 decision ofR v Morgentaler.[3] Morgentaler planned to open an abortion clinic in Nova Scotia. The provincial government immediately passed legislation that would outlaw abortion clinics and limit the procedure to hospitals only. However, the regulations introduced were not limited to abortions. The province added procedures like liposuction and anything it claimed would jeopardize public health care in favour of a private system. Offenders would face criminal penalties. Morgentaler proceeded to open his clinic anyway and was charged. He then challenged the constitutionality of the provincial law that outlawed abortion clinics.[4] The Supreme Court agreed with the argument that specific abortion regulations, rather than being a valid provincial regulation of hospitals and medicine, instead constituted an invalid criminal law.[5] As a result, all regulations introduced in the legislation were struck down, including those not dealing with abortion.[6] Hogg argues that this was an example of colourability: Nova Scotia may have simply wished to limit abortions in the province, and so it introduced other legislation as a package that would accomplish more than one goal.[7] Colourability is often thought of as a negative term that should be used both carefully and sparingly. According to Hogg, the adjective ‘colourable’ carries a strong connotation of disapproval or even suspicion of the means by which the legislative body sought to carry out the policy.[8] Therefore, when examining whether legislation is out of, or ultra vires, a particular jurisdiction one should not jump to the conclusion that the legislation is attempting to achieve some ulterior or subversive purpose.[9] [1]The Constitution Act, 1867, ss 38-49, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. [2]Peter W Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, vol 2, 5th ed (Scarborough: Thomson, 2007) at 15.2. [3]R v Morgentaler, [1993] 3 SCR 463 (CanLII) [Mortgentaler]. <http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1993/1993canlii158/1993ca nlii158.html>. [4]Ibid. [5]Ibid. [6]Ibid. [7]Hogg, supra note 1. [8]Ibid. [9]Ibid..

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Abortion and Democracy for Women: a Critique of Tremblay V
Abortion and Democracy for Women: A Critique of Tremblay v. Daigle Donna Greschner Chantal Daigle's ordeal before the courts in La d6cision de la Cour supreme dans Tremblay the summer of 1989 culminated in the c. Daigle marqua la fin d'un 6t6 de peines et Supreme Court of Canada decision of d'angoisse pour Chantal Daigle. Cette d6cision Tremblay v. Daigle. This decision, along with se range aux c6t6s de Morgentaleret Borowski the Court's prior decisions in Morgentalerand et force nos reprsentants politiques Aadresser Borowski, has forced politicians to address the Ia question de l'avortement. abortion issue. L'auteur soutient que l'issue du d6bat sur The author argues that the exclusion of women l'avortement a 6t6 ddtermin~e d'avance car les in framing the terms and the vocabulary of the femmes n'ont pas choisi ses termes, nile Ian- abortion debate predetermines its outcome. gage dans lequel il se d~roulera. Les tribunaux She believes that courts must recognize the doivent, selon elle, reconnaitre les forces en power relations at play and address the lack of jeu et tenir compte du manque de d~mocratie democracy for women. Courts must not only pour et par les femmes. Ils doivent non seule- encourage women to speak, but must also ment encourager les femmes s'exprimer, encourage the speech of women. mais surtout encourager l'expression des The author urges the Court to state unequivo- femmes. cally that foetuses have no constitutional L'auteur affirme que la Cour doit prendre posi- rights. She argues that such a decision is nec- tion et d6clarer clairement qu'un foetus n'a pas essary to bring women into the public debate de droit constitutionnel.
[Show full text]
The Contradictory Relationship Between Law and Abortion
Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 1-25-2008 Better Never Than Late, But Why?: The Contradictory Relationship Between Law and Abortion Shelley A. M. Gavigan Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Source Publication: Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today: 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler: Symposium. National Abortion Federation, 2008. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works Part of the Medical Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Gavigan, Shelley A. M. "Better Never Than Late, But Why?: The Contradictory Relationship Between Law and Abortion." in Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today: 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler: Symposium. National Abortion Federation, 2008. p. 29-34. Print. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today SYMPOSIUM Toronto, Ontario January 25, 2008 Co-hosted by the National Abortion Federation and the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto 20th Anniversary of R v. Morgentaler Symposium Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today On January 25, 2008, in Toronto, Ontario, to representatives from government the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto and women’s advocacy organizations. (U of T) and the National Abortion Examining abortion from a variety of Federation (NAF) co-hosted an perspectives, participants addressed the interdisciplinary symposium to celebrate significance of the event and the difference the 20-year anniversary of Regina v.
[Show full text]
Abortion Judicial Activism and Constitutional Crossroads
ABORTION JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND CONSTITUTIONAL CROSSROADS Beverly Baines* 1. Introduction In 1984 Bruce A. Ackerman and Robert E. Chamey maintained Canada was still “at the constitutional crossroads.”1 Describing the issue as one of parliamentary versus popular sovereignty, they urged us to follow the lead of our American neighbours by adopting the latter. Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, since Ackerman and Chamey had already acknowledged Canada’s status as a federal state, theirs was not a metaphor asking whether we accepted the division of powers. Rather their “constitutional crossroads” questioned our commitment to the separation of powers. The Supreme Court of Canada’s abortion jurisprudence provides a unique opportunity for determining whether we remain “at the constitutional crossroads” that Ackerman and Chamey identified. Since 1984 the Court has decided four abortion cases, striking down the impugned abortion laws in two of these cases by invoking the Canadian Charter o f Rights and Freedoms2 in one3 and federalism in the other.4 Scholars have subjected the Charter decision known as the 1988 Morgentaler case to considerable comment. Not only have conservative political scientists criticized the outcome, feminist law professors have also challenged the judges’ reasoning. The distinctiveness of their concerns suggests conservatives and feminists may differ more about the identity than about the existence of any “constitutional crossroads” that confront Canada. Conservatives contend the 1988 Morgentaler decision exemplifies the Court taking the wrong side in the controversy over judicial activism versus deference. They claim the judges should have chosen the latter. Comparing their depiction with that of Ackerman and Chamey, it * Associate Professor of Law, Queen’s University.
[Show full text]
Decriminalising Abortion in the Uk the in Abortion Poli Sally Sheldon and Kaye Wellings Kaye and Sheldon Sally
“Abortion plays a fundamental Available Open Access under Decriminalising Abortion UK the in role in women’s health but is CC-BY-NC licence. often shrouded in myth and hyperbole. This lucid and The public and parliamentary accessible text provides robust debate about UK abortion law and reliable evidence on this reform is often diverted away important issue.” from key moral and political Professor Dame Lesley Regan questions by disputes regarding DBE, MD DSc, Royal College of basic questions of fact. And all Obstetricians and Gynaecologists too often, claims of scientific ‘fact’ are ideologically driven. “This excellent book steps aside from the heat of debate What effect would Edited by Sally Sheldon and Kaye Wellings in order to provide an accurate decriminalisation be likely to account of the evidence about have on women’s health? What clinical safety, public opinion and would be the impact on the legal regulation. It provides an incidence of abortions? Would essential reference point for all decriminalisation equate to those seeking to approach the deregulation, sweeping away reform of abortion law with moral necessary restrictions on integrity.’’ dangerous or malicious conduct? Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery, University College With each chapter written by London leading experts in the fields of medicine, law, reproductive health and social science, this book offers a concise and Sally Sheldon is Professor of authoritative account of the Law at the University of Kent and University of Technology, Sydney. evidence regarding the likely impact of decriminalisation of POLICY PRESSPOLICY & PRACT ICE Kaye Wellings is Professor of abortion in the UK. Sexual and Reproductive Health Research at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
[Show full text]
Travel to Access Abortion Services in Canada Christabelle Sethna
University of Ottawa Summer 2012 World SOCIAL SCIENCES RESEARCH AT THE of IDEAS UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA Travel to Access Abortion Services in Canada Christabelle Sethna On April 26, 2012, Conservative Party Member individual must be paramount and take precedence of Parliament Stephen Woodward introduced a over that of the state ... I do not want women to go motion asking for a special committee to consider back to the previous era where some were forced the legal beginnings of human life. Woodward’s to obtain abortions from illegal and medically action revived fears that the Conservative dangerous sources. This should never happen in a Government has a “hidden agenda” regarding civilized society.1 changes to the status of abortion in Canada even though Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated Abortion is recognized globally as a vital he opposed the motion and Party whip Gordon component of sexual and reproductive health O’Connor made the following statement: care for women. It is a commonplace, albeit time- sensitive medical procedure that has good health The decision of whether or not to terminate a outcomes for women when trained personnel pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and, in a perform it under sanitary conditions within the first free and democratic society, the conscience of the trimester. Yet abortion has become a stigmatized 1 Gordon O’Connor quoted in Warren Kinsella, “Harper proves true to his word,” Toronto Sun, April 30, 2012 http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/30/harper-proves-true-to-his-word, Retrieved May 2, 2012 Faculty of Social Sciences www.socialsciences.uOttawa.ca World of IDEAS - Travel to Access Abortion Services in Canada Since 1988 access to abortion services throughout the country remains patchy because of numerous extra-legal obstacles, thereby making travel a necessity for many women.
[Show full text]
THE IMPACT of the ABORTION LAW CONTROVERSY on NORTH AMERICAN HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH Pollcy
THE IMPACT OF THE ABORTION LAW CONTROVERSY ON NORTH AMERICAN HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH POLlCY David M. Kaplan A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Department of Community Health (Health Administration) Joint Centre for Bioethics University of Toronto O Copyright by David M. Kaplan (1 997) Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada Your hie Volre réference Our hle Nolre r%l~rencs The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/b, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in tbis thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othenvise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF THE ABORTION LAW CONTROVERSY ON NORTH AMERICAN HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH POLlCY Master of Science, 1997, David M. Kaplan, Graduate Department of Community Health (Health Administration), University of Toronto This exploratory study examines why Canada and the United States of America have adopted different policies regarding research on human emb~yos.One possibIe explanation may rest in an examination of the hstory and the values eupressed in the respective landmark abortion decisions.
[Show full text]
Of What Difference? ISBN 978-0-9812493-0-8 20Th Anniversary of Regina V
Of What Difference? ISBN 978-0-9812493-0-8 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today SYMPOSIUM Toronto, Ontario January 25, 2008 Co-hosted by the National Abortion Federation and the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto 20th Anniversary of R v. Morgentaler Symposium Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today On January 25, 2008, in Toronto, Ontario, to representatives from government the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto and women’s advocacy organizations. (U of T) and the National Abortion Examining abortion from a variety of Federation (NAF) co-hosted an perspectives, participants addressed the interdisciplinary symposium to celebrate significance of the event and the difference the 20-year anniversary of Regina v. the R. v. Morgentaler judgment has since Morgentaler, the Supreme Court case in made to women, providers and the politics which the criminal law on abortion in of abortion in Canada. Canada was held unconstitutional. This reader, prepared in collaboration with The symposium brought together more the Women’s Health Research Institute, is than 100 participants, from legal scholars, a compilation of the day’s presentations at abortion providers and journalists this commemorative legal conference. This document is the property of the National Abortion Federation. Permission to reproduce this document is granted for use without fee and without formal request provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as NAF copyright and the title of the document specified. Copies may not be made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
[Show full text]
Morgentaler History 14 Final Bw
MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE® A Chronology of Choice in Canada WHEN CHOICE WAS ILLEGAL • The Canadian Parliament banned abortion completely in 1869 under threat of life imprisonment.1 • In 1892, the sale, distribution, and advertisement of contraceptives was prohibited by federal law.2 • These illegal abortions were often performed by an untrained physician in unsanitary conditions using primitive methods.3 THE PRE-MORGENTALER ERA: THE 1960’s AND 1970’s • By the 1960’s, it was estimated that anywhere from 35,000 to 120,000 abortions were being performed every year.4 • In 1969, a woman was permitted to obtain a therapeutic abortion if a hospital committee deemed that continuing the pregnancy would endanger the woman’s life or health.5 Also in 1969, contraception was legalized in Canada.6 • Between 1970 and 1973, several charges were laid against Dr. Henry Morgentaler after he released a public statement that we was performing abortions. These abortions were safe, but illegal in the sense that they were performed in clinics, without committee approval. 7 • Though a jury acquitted Dr. Morgentaler of the charges, the Quebec Court of Appeals overturned the jury verdict and found Dr. Morgentaler guilty in April 1974. In 1975, Dr. Morgentaler began to serve 10 months of his 16-month prison sentence, during which time he suffered a mild heart attack.8 • In September 1976, Dr. Morgentaler was acquitted of all charges: this was the third jury to deliver a verdict of not-guilty in his case.9 THE MORGENTALER DECISION • On January 28, 1988, in the case of R v Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law (section 251 of the Criminal Code), ruling that it was unconstitutional.
[Show full text]
AFTER MORGENTALER the Politics of Abortion in Canada
AFTER MORGENTALER The Politics of Abortion in Canada Rachael Johnstone Sample Material © UBC Press 2017 Praise for After Morgentaler: “After Morgentaler will quickly occupy benchmark status in the comparative health care and reproductive-rights policy literatures. Th rough case studies, Rachael Johnstone illuminates the strategies of pro- and anti-choice groups, and health-professional organizations, by situating them in Canadian insti- tutional, legal, and political history. Th e result is a clear argument for why shifting to a positive-rights understanding of the Charter is needed to safe- guard women’s constitutionally protected access to reproductive health care.” —Melissa Haussman, professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University “In addition to making a strong case for reconceptualising abortion as a right of citizenship for women, this book oﬀ ers a useful study of compara- tive provincial politics and health care more generally.” —Francesca Scala, associate professor of political science, Concordia University Sample Material © UBC Press 2017 © UBC Press 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher, or, in Canada, in the case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from Access Copyright, www.accesscopyright.ca . 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in Canada on FSC-certiﬁ ed ancient-forest-free paper (100% post-consumer recycled) that is processed chlorine- and acid-free. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Johnstone, Rachael, author After Morgentaler : the politics of abortion in Canada / Rachael Johnstone.
[Show full text]
THE MORGENTALER CASE: CRIMINAL PROCESS and ABORTION LAW by BERNARD M
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 1 Volume 14, Number 2 (October 1976) The orM gentaler Case: Criminal Process and Abortion Law Bernard M. Dickens Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Article Citation Information Dickens, Bernard M.. "The orM gentaler Case: Criminal Process and Abortion Law." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 14.2 (1976) : 229-274. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol14/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL Vol. 14 No. 2 October 1976 THE MORGENTALER CASE: CRIMINAL PROCESS AND ABORTION LAW By BERNARD M. DIcKENs** A. INTRODUCTION An investigation of the sequence of events that posterity will know col- lectively as The Morgentaler Case furnishes materials for a critical course of studies in the Canadian criminal process from initial charge, through denial of parole, to conduct of a re-trial, and perhaps even for a case-study in the dynamics of law-reform. Reaction to the Morgentaler episode is neither uniform nor complete, but when the social history of modem times comes to be written, the name of Dr. Henry Morgentaler may appear as the name not just of a person or of a judgment, but of a development in social attitude. It may identify the moment when a woman's obligation to continue an un- wanted pregnancy ceased to be merely her misfortune, and became recognized as an injustice.1 Judicial and legislative accommodation to this development is, however, still awaited; at present, it is expressed only by juries.
[Show full text]
Abortion: History, Politics, and Reproductive Justice After
Abortion History, Politics, and Reproductive Justice after Morgentaler Edited by Shannon Stettner, Kristin Burnett, and Travis Hay Sample Material © UBC Press 2018 © UBC Press 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher, or, in Canada, in the case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from Access Copyright, www.accesscopyright.ca. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Abortion : history, politics, and reproductive justice after Morgentaler / edited by Shannon Stettner, Kristin Burnett, and Travis Hay. Includes bibliographical references and index. Issued in print and electronic formats. ISBN 978-0-7748-3573-2 (hardcover).–ISBN 978-0-7748-3575-6 (PDF).– ISBN 978-0-7748-3576-3 (EPUB).–ISBN 978-0-7748-3577-0 (Kindle) 1. Abortion–Canada. 2. Abortion–Canada–History. 3. Abortion–Law and legislation–Canada. 4. Abortion–Political aspects–Canada. 5. Reproductive rights– Canada. 6. Women–Health and hygiene–Canada. 7. Women’s health services– Canada. I. Stettner, Shannon, editor II. Burnett, Kristin, 1974-, editor III. Hay, Travis A., editor HQ767.5.C2A245 2017 362.1988'80971 C2017-905918-1 C2017-905919-X UBC Press gratefully acknowledges the financial support for our publishing program of the Government of Canada (through the Canada Book Fund), the Canada Council for the Arts, and the British Columbia Arts Council. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
[Show full text]
Morgentaler V. Her Majesty the Queen and the Attorney General of Canada (1988)
Morgentaler v. Her Majesty the Queen and the Attorney General Of Canada (1988) Decriminalizing Abortion in Canada: A Case Law Analysis Leslie Norber Honors Capstone Spring 2008 2 Abstract: This paper discusses the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada landmark case Morgentaler et. al. v. Her Majesty the Queen and the Attorney General of Canada (1988). This case decriminalized the medical procedure of abortion and eased many federal prohibitions and regulations of the practice, making it easier and less intimidating for a woman to access should she choose to terminate her pregnancy. The format of this paper is that of a court case brief which discusses background information surrounding the case, the constitutional questions addressed in the litigation, the majority holding of the Court, and a synopsis of the significance and legacy of the case. Background January 28, 2008 marks the 20 th anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Morgentaler et. al. v. Her Majesty the Queen and the Attorney General of Canada (1988) (also known as R. v. Morgentaler) which decriminalized abortion in Canada. Prior to this case, abortion was prohibited in Canada with exceptions granted only for the life or health of the woman. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the namesake in this case, is an abortion practitioner who immigrated to Canada from Poland after surviving imprisonment in two concentration camps during the Holocaust. Morgentaler credits his survival with a “heightened feeling of injustice and I saw injustice meted out to women who needed abortions…I was sensitized to injustice and when I was in a position to do something about it, I felt it was a duty to do so, at whatever risk there was.
[Show full text]